DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 14 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of: “wherein the percentage intermediate value is between 30% and 90%, preferably 60%, the leg member thus being between 70% and 10% retracted and/or between 30% and 90% extended.” It is unclear when the percentage intermediate value is between 30% and 90%, how is it possible for the leg member being between 70% and 10% retracted? Clarification is required. For the purposed of the examination, the Examiner will construe the percentage intermediate value is between 10% and 90% for the purpose of the examination.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 – 7 and 9 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerhing et al. (Hereinafter Gerhing) (WO 2005108194 A1).
As per claim 1, Gehring teaches the limitations of:
A method for controlling a vehicle combination comprising a towing vehicle and a semitrailer, wherein the towing vehicle has a chassis and a hitch plate arranged thereon, and the semitrailer has an upper coupler plate with a kingpin (See at least abstract and page 2 paragraph 3; The invention relates to a method for putting down and picking up a semitrailer (4), whereby putting down includes lowering at least one support device (5) of the semitrailer (4) and opening the lock (20) of a fifth wheel (19), and picking up includes picking up the semitrailer (4), closing the lock (20) of the fifth wheel (19) and lifting the at least one support device (5) of the semitrailer (4). The steps for putting down the semitrailer (4) can be carried out in an automated manner by a control device when an actuator (12) is brought into a put down position. The steps for picking it up can be carried out in an automated manner when the actuator (12) is brought into a pick-up position. The invention allows to simplify putting down and picking up of a semitrailer (4). … To pick up a semi-trailer, the towing vehicle is driven under a semi-trailer and the locking of the fifth wheel coupling is closed when the kingpin of the semi-trailer trailer sits in the fifth wheel.),
wherein, in a coupled state, the kingpin is configured to be fixed pivotably in a coupling aperture in the hitch plate by means of a locking device (See at least page 2 paragraph 3; To pick up a semi-trailer, the towing vehicle is driven under a semi-trailer and the locking of the fifth wheel coupling is closed when the kingpin of the semi-trailer trailer sits in the fifth wheel. The support device of the semi-trailer is then raised by actuation of an operating element by the driver on the support device.), and
at least one landing leg having a leg member and a supporting foot secured on the underside thereof is arranged on the semitrailer, wherein the leg member is configured to be adjusted between an extended position, in which the semitrailer is supported on an underlying surface via the supporting foot, and a retracted position (See at least figure 1 and page 6 paragraph 3; The control unit 11 is connected to the support device 5, which in the exemplary embodiment comprises two supports. The control device 11 can lower and retract the support device 5. The correct retraction and extension of the support device 5 can be monitored by sensors 21 which are connected to the control unit 10. If an error occurs when lowering the support device 5, this is reported to the control unit 10 and a corresponding warning message can be output to the driver via the signaling device 16. It goes without saying that the sensors 21 are also connected to the control device 11 and an error can be reported to the signaling device 16 via the control device 10.), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
254
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- coupling the semitrailer to the towing vehicle during a coupling process at a parking position in an automated manner and adjusting the leg member out of an extended position in the direction of the retracted position once the semitrailer is coupled (See at least page 2 paragraph 1 – 2; The invention relates to a method for parking and picking up a semi-trailer, wherein the parking comprises lowering at least one support device of the semi-trailer and opening the lock of a fifth wheel coupling, and picking up the semi-trailer closing the lock of the fifth wheel coupling and lifting the at least one support device of the semi-trailer includes. Several actions have to be carried out to park semitrailers from a towing vehicle or to pick up semitrailers onto a towing vehicle, for example a semitrailer tractor. To park the semi-trailer, the semi-trailer is moved into a parking position. A parking brake of the towing vehicle is then applied. According to WO 00/51859 it is provided that the driver then gets out of the towing vehicle and actuates a switch for lowering a support device of the semi-trailer. The fifth wheel coupling can then be opened (manually) and the towing vehicle can be pulled out from under the parked semi-trailer.), and/or
- uncoupling the semitrailer from the towing vehicle during an uncoupling process at the parking position in an automated manner and adjusting, the leg member into the extended position before the uncoupling of the semitrailer (See at least page 2 paragraph 1 – 2), but does not expressly teach the limitations of:
wherein the leg member is adjusted in an automated manner between an intermediate position and the extended position or vice versa while the vehicle combination is stationary and in the parking position, and/or wherein the leg member is adjusted in an automated manner between the intermediate position and the retracted position or vice versa while the semitrailer coupled to the towing vehicle is moved away from the parking position during the coupling process, or is moved in the direction of the parking position during the uncoupling process while the vehicle combination is not stationary (page 4 paragraph 2; , the towing vehicle is advantageously automatically raised into its driving position. This means that the towing vehicle with the semitrailer attached is ready to continue. The trailer supports of the support device can then be retracted. The object is also achieved by a device for picking up and parking a semi-trailer by or from a towing vehicle with at least one control device, with exactly one actuating device being provided for automated picking up and parking of the semi-trailer, which is connected to the control device, the control device being a Locking a fifth wheel coupling and controls at least one support device. With such a device, parking and picking up a semi-trailer is considerably simplified).
As per claim 6, Gehring teaches the limitation of:
wherein the semitrailer coupled to the towing vehicle is moved away from the parking position in an automated manner during the coupling process, or is moved in a direction of the parking position in an automated manner during the uncoupling process, by automated control of the towing vehicle by a movement controller, such that, for example, the towing vehicle is moved along a setpoint trajectory, wherein the movement controller control device controls and/or moves the towing vehicle in an automated manner with at least one constraint as long as the leg members is between the intermediate position and the retracted position (See at least page 2 paragraph 5 – page 3 paragraph 1).
As per claim 7, Gehring teaches the limitation of:
wherein the movement controller controls and/or moves the towing vehicle in an automated manner with the at least one constraint that:
-the towing vehicle does not exceed a defined limit speed, and/or
-the towing vehicle is situated on the underlying surface with a slope of less than 5% and/or
-the towing vehicle is situated on or moving along the underlying surface with objects below a defined limiting object height (See at least page 2 paragraph 5 – page 3 paragraph 1).
As per claim 9, Gehring teaches the limitations of:
- during the coupling process, adjusting the leg member in an automated manner out of the extended position into the intermediate position while the semitrailer previously coupled to the towing vehicle is stationary and in the parking position, and/or
- during the uncoupling process, adjusting the respective leg member in an automated manner out of the intermediate position into the extended position while the semitrailer still coupled to the towing vehicle is stationary and in the parking position, and/or
- during the coupling process, adjusting the leg member is adjusted in an automated manner out of the intermediate position into the retracted position while the semitrailer previously coupled to the towing vehicle is moved away from the parking position, and/or
-during the uncoupling process, adjusting the leg member is adjusted in an automated manner out of the retracted position into the intermediate position while the semitrailer still coupled to the towing vehicle is moved in the direction of the parking position (See at least page 4 paragraph 2. The Examiner construes that if the supporting device is retracted from extended position, it has to go through intermediate position).
As per claim 10, Gehring teaches the limitations of:
during an uncoupling process, adjusting the leg member in an automated manner out of the retracted position into the intermediate position as soon as an enable signal is present, wherein the enable signal is generated and output as soon as the semitrailer enters a defined zone around the parking position and/or there is a manual driver input via a user control element (See at least page 4 paragraph 2 and page 5 paragraph 6 – page 6 paragraph 3. The Examiner construes that if the supporting device is retracted from extended position, it has to go through intermediate position).
As per claim 11, Gehring teaches the limitations of:
wherein the leg member is adjusted in an automated manner out of the retracted position in such that, during an uncoupling process, the leg member reaches the intermediate position before, as soon as or after the semitrailer has reached the parking position and is stationary (See at least page 6 paragraph 4 – page 7 paragraph 1).
As per claim 12, Gehring teaches the limitations of:
The Examiner notes, wherein, until the parking position is reached, the leg member is held in the intermediate position is dependent on the phrase " if the intermediate position has already been reached”. This phrase is a conditional limitation. The noted step is not necessarily performed. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally invocable under certain other hypothetical scenarios. [See: In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (CA FC 2006); Intel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991); MPEP §2106 II C].
Regarding claims 13 – 14:
Claims 13 – 14 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1, 6 – 7 and 9 – 12 above, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring.
As per claim 2, Gehring does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
wherein the intermediate position is reached when the leg member is at a percentage intermediate value between the retracted position and the extended position, wherein the percentage intermediate value is between 30% and 90%, preferably 60%, the leg member thus being between 70% and 10% retracted and/or between 30% and 90% extended.
However, as the support devices of Gehring goes from extended position to retracted position, and vice versa, the support device will go through position of 0 – 100% or 100% to 0%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention was made to leg member is at a percentage intermediate value between the retracted position and the extended position, wherein the percentage intermediate value is between 30% and 90%, preferably 60%, the leg member thus being between 70% and 10% retracted and/or between 30% and 90% extended, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves on the routine skill in the art.
As per claim 4, Gehring teaches the limitations of:
wherein the towing vehicle furthermore has a level control system, wherein a height of the chassis of the towing vehicle relative to a rear axle of the towing vehicle is configured to be changed by actuating the level control system between a minimum height and a maximum height (See at least page 2 paragraph 6 – page 3 paragraph 1),
wherein the height of the chassis relative to the rear axle is changed in an automated manner in a direction of the maximum height before or while the leg member is adjusted in an automated manner between the intermediate position and the retracted position during a movement of the semitrailer (See at least page 2 paragraph 6 – page 3 paragraph 1).
Claims 3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring in view of Granstroem et al. (Hereinafter Granstroem) (WO 2007102777 A1).
As per claim 3, Gehring teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
wherein the intermediate position is reached when a predefined intermediate adjustment value for the respective leg member is reached, wherein the intermediate adjustment value is between a maximum adjustment travel corresponding to the extended position and a minimum adjustment travel corresponding to the retracted position.
Granstroem teaches the limitation of:
wherein the intermediate position is reached when a predefined intermediate adjustment value for the respective leg member is reached, wherein the intermediate adjustment value is between a maximum adjustment travel corresponding to the extended position and a minimum adjustment travel corresponding to the retracted position (See at least Figure 3B and page 6 paragraph 5 – 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the intermediate position is reached when a predefined intermediate adjustment value for the respective leg member is reached, wherein the intermediate adjustment value is between a maximum adjustment travel corresponding to the extended position and a minimum adjustment travel corresponding to the retracted position as taught by Granstroem in the system of Gehring, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, the combination of Gehring and Granstroem teaches the limitation of:
wherein the percentage intermediate value and/or the intermediate adjustment value is adapted as a function of the set height of the chassis relative to the rear axle (Granstroem , See at least Figure 3B).
As per claim 8, the combination of Gehring and Granstroem teaches the limitation of:
wherein the leg member is adjusted in an automated manner out of the extended position into the intermediate position while the semitrailer previously coupled to the towing vehicle is stationary and in a first parking position, and/or the semitrailer coupled to the towing vehicle is moved out of the first parking position into a second parking position while the leg member is in the intermediate position, and the leg member is adjusted in an automated manner out of the intermediate position into the extended position when stationary and in the second parking position in order then to uncouple the semitrailer (Granstroem , See at least Figure 3B and page 6 paragraph 5 – page 7 paragraph 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masters et al. (US 2001/0054524 A1) discloses robotic vehicle that tracks the path of a lead vehicle.
Paasche et al. (WO 2006114197 A1) disclsoes method and device for coupling and decoupling semitrailers in a completely automatic manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights